It's sad because I'm pretty sure Dakota is trolling us all.

I think winning is good and losing is bad. I want the Jags to win at everything, and I'm trolling you all?

 

Have you lost your friggin' mind son?

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

There's a lot of examples of #1 picks winning superbowls.

There's been a lot of teams to win superbowls without any #1 picks on their team.  But one thing stands.  Draft picks are very valuable.  I want my team to have a lot of them, and I want them to be as high as possible.  This suffering and horrible play must be for some kind of greater good.  I believe with the way the NFL is right now, the QB position is more important than ever.  You have to have a QB first.  That doesn't mean you will automatically be a NFL team, but you have to have the QB.  THEN, you have to find everything else around him.... which I believe is easier to do than finding a potential star at the QB position. 

 

GMs have some foresight, hopefully.  I think Caldwell not going after a QB this year is simply because he realized next year's draft class will be much better.  He will get much better value. 

 

I remember reading something about Caldwell having a similar attitude with drafting Julio Jones.

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

Dakota...

 

 

However, as deep as your convictions on this topic seem to run, as right as you think you are, you have yet to identify a single tangible benefit to winning those meaningless games in 2011 as I asked you to do pages ago.  I don't think I placed a particularly onerous burden upon you. If you had the truth behind you, you should have no problems making that case.  But the fact is those wins didn't springboard the team to greater success in 2012 by teaching the lessons on how to win.  The team regressed by 60% in terms of wins and losses and finished with the worst record in the league.  The team wasn't any more competitive in their losses.

 

You have yet another opportunity to address this point with substance.

 

Can you do it?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Dude.. he thinks Eli wasn't the first overall pick. No football IQ what so ever.

 

Not that I need to answer for Dakota, but no one has really grasped his point in this thread.

 

The only team to win a Super Bowl in this young century that:

 

a. had the first overall pick, and

b. used that pick on a QB

 

is the colts.

---

I absolutely can question others' fanhood when they want the team that they're allegedly fans of to lose.

 

Fans don't wish losses on their team. Period.

"You have a different opinion on than I do on how this team can compete for a Super Bowl. You're not a fan!!!!!" - You right now. 

 

The Merriam Webster definition of a fan: an enthusiastic devotee (as of a sport or a performing art) usually as a spectator. 

 

I don't see anything about winning or losing on there. You know why? Because win or lose, we still support and are devoted to this team. A large portion of us just happen to think that losing will actually LEAD to MORE wins in the future. So while you sit there a wish for just a couple of wins in a lowly, losing season, we prefer to wish for Super Bowl rings and division titles. It's just a different viewpoint, period. 

---

I think winning is good and losing is bad. I want the Jags to win at everything, and I'm trolling you all?

 

Have you lost your friggin' mind son?

 

Don't call me son.

 

Dakota, we know you're a good fan.  But come on.  That argument is akin to a 5-year old's.  Win = good, losing = bad. 

 

Put things in perspective.  We're not making the playoffs.  We've been horrible for years now.  We haven't had a QB for years now.  There are people that believe next year will have more QBs worthy of selecting.  It doesn't have to be the #1 pick, but you want your GM with as much ammunition as possible, don't you?  Even if he wants to trade down, isn't it better to trade down from the #1 pick than from the #5 pick?

 

Fans need to look ahead in seasons like this.  The games are not fun to watch.  We are horrible.  People cling on to the hope that next year the draft will make us a good team again. 

 

That's one of the reasons the draft is so popular.  It gives the horrible teams AND the good teams something to look forward to.

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

Not that I need to answer for Dakota, but no one has really grasped his point in this thread.


The only team to win a Super Bowl in this young century that:


a. had the first overall pick, and

b. used that pick on a QB


is the colts.

Lol that's not what he said but ok...

---

Not that I need to answer for Dakota, but no one has really grasped his point in this thread.

 

The only team to win a Super Bowl in this young century that:

 

a. had the first overall pick, and

b. used that pick on a QB

 

is the colts.

 

what's your point?  That it's not gonna happen?  Looks like the Colts shouldn't have drafted Andrew Luck, then. 

 

"in this young century".... why did you have to include that?  Because it's cherry picking data, making it practically useless in an argument.  I also think it's a form of dishonesty.

 

And, it doesn't necessarily have to be a QB.  Having the first pick is better than having the 2nd pick regardless of draft year.  It gives you more valuable picks throughout the round, you have more ammo.

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

Not that I need to answer for Dakota, but no one has really grasped his point in this thread.

 

The only team to win a Super Bowl in this young century that:

 

a. had the first overall pick, and

b. used that pick on a QB

 

is the colts.

No one is saying that drafting a qb with the first pick will guarantee you a SB victory.  But what it will hopefully do is make your TEAM better and have the chance to maybe compete.

---

Not that I need to answer for Dakota, but no one has really grasped his point in this thread.

 

The only team to win a Super Bowl in this young century that:

 

a. had the first overall pick, and

b. used that pick on a QB

 

is the colts.

Terry Bradshaw, Troy Aikman, and Drew Bledsoe (injured) come to mind. I don't understand why Elway, Peyton, and Eli don't count. Also, why does it have to be a QB? I just want an elite player, the best player, QB or not. I just happen to think QB is the best, but if we get Clowney (or whoever) and they become dominant and lead us to wins than I'm all for it.

---

Terry Bradshaw, Troy Aikman, and Drew Bledsoe (injured) come to mind. I don't understand why Elway, Peyton, and Eli don't count. Also, why does it have to be a QB? I just want an elite player, the best player, QB or not. I just happen to think QB is the best, but if we get Clowney (or whoever) and they become dominant and lead us to wins than I'm all for it.

Excellent point.

 

Buffalo sure benefitted from Bruce Smith, didn't they?

 

They needed Kelly to come from the USFL, but Kelly and Smith together? Man!

 

But according to "extatic" Dakota, it has nothing to do with talent, and everything to do with "learning to win."

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Dakota...

 

 

You have yet another opportunity to address this point with substance.

 

Can you do it?

Question an already determined sequence of events from the past? What's your point?

 

It worked for some teams and it hasn't for others.

 

You want substance, it can't be any clearer than this: I don't wish a loss on my team for any reason whatsoever. Not the first pick, not a QB, not Santa Claus, not a winning lotto ticket.

 

I don't sell my soul for some perceived victory down the road.

 

What hole are you all going to crawl down if the Jags get the first pick, select a player and that player tanks? What is your reasoning going to be then? Are you all going to continue on wishing for more losses? You must all be very comfortable with losing. I am not, and will never be.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

Question an already determined sequence of events from the past? What's your point?

 

It worked for some teams and it hasn't for others.

 

You want substance, it can't be any clearer than this: I don't wish a loss on my team for any reason whatsoever. Not the first pick, not a QB, not Santa Claus, not a winning lotto ticket.

 

I don't sell my soul for some perceived victory down the road.

 

What hole are you all going to crawl down if the Jags get the first pick, select a player and that player tanks? What is your reasoning going to be then? Are you all going to continue on wishing for more losses? You must all be very comfortable with losing. I am not, and will never be.

And the self righteous filibuster continues...

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Never got the 'learning to win' or 'culture of winning' sentiments.

 

These guys are in the NFL.  Winning is built into them.  That's why they're there.  Do you think Blaine Gabbert is a poor QB because he doesn't know how to win?  His team lost just THREE games in his junior year, the year we drafted him.  Did he suddenly come to the Jaguars and forget how to win?  

 

If you need a culture of winning, then maybe we do need to sign you-know-who.  He doesn't know how to throw a football, and he doesn't have accuracy, but I'd guess that he knows how to win.  But then again I'd guess our players do know how to win.  They just lack the talent necessary to do so.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Never got the 'learning to win' or 'culture of winning' sentiments.

 

These guys are in the NFL.  Winning is built into them.  That's why they're there.  Do you think Blaine Gabbert is a poor QB because he doesn't know how to win?  His team lost just THREE games in his junior year, the year we drafted him.  Did he suddenly come to the Jaguars and forget how to win?  

 

If you need a culture of winning, then maybe we do need to sign you-know-who.  He doesn't know how to throw a football, and he doesn't have accuracy, but I'd guess that he knows how to win.  But then again I'd guess our players do know how to win.  They just lack the talent necessary to do so.  

And there it is!

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I absolutely can question others' fanhood when they want the team that they're allegedly fans of to lose.

 

Fans don't wish losses on their team. Period.

THEY DO IF IT MEANS GETTING A FRANCHISE QB THAT WILL HELP US CONTEND FOR YEARS!  WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?!

---

I'm with Dakota.  Let's finish 4-12, draft 5th, and miss out on the premiere players or the opportunity to trade down because finishing 4-12 is "better" than 0-16. 

 

Gotta love the simple folks....

---

Simple is actually a perfect way to describe Dakota in this instance.

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

Well, as I read your post to which I replied, I'm not sure if I "disagreed" in the strongest, truest sense of the word.

 

I guess my goal was to make the point that draft position has its advantages in rebuilding efforts, and to the extent that "tanking" helps to secure superior draft position, there is an argument to be made for tanking.  Admittedly, my execution of that position was lacking.

 

However, you correctly identified the missing link in my argument-namely that there is considerable difference between legitimately losing due to bad drafting, attrition, etc., vs. "tanking."  To the extent sports leagues generally and the NFL in particular operate under competitive ethical norms, I imagine tanking to be a most dubious departure from those ethical norms.

 

I do not allege the 49ers tanked to obtain the draft position to get the players I listed above.  For that matter, I do not allege the Jaguars have tanked or are currently tanking to secure draft position.  Any of us can look at the Jaguars poor drafting over the past decade and see the correlation between poor drafting and our sad state of affairs.

 

That said, there is a link between "bottoming out" record wise, having greater access to the available talent pool, correctly evaluating the talent in that pool, and then ascent into contender status.  To the degree that bottoming out, whether by legitimate sustained ineptitude or contrived ineptitude (i.e. tanking) grants that greater access, it puts us potentially closer to becoming contenders.

 

I know that I'm coming back into this arguement rather late, my apologies.  Having 1 infant and 1 toddler, and a wife that doesn't understand why I don't jump ship off the Jaguars, makes it difficult to post as often as I like.

 

With that said, let me begin our debate again...

 

I've skimmed through the 6 or so pages since your response to me...  From what I've gleamed, this discussion has followed the typical Jungle MB zietgiest of being reduced to Bibbers V. Homers.  I don't care for this drama.  More often than not, it is unproductive--though I must admit rather entertaining.

 

I've read you're stuff for the past year or so, Bullseye, and you are absolutely not a "mouth-breather" or a "self-soiler" or whatever.  It's pretty wack (do kids still say that?) to think otherwise.  You're proposition regarding getting the #1 pick is fine.  If we can project that having the #1 pick will create an organization like the clots, then sure, let's tank.

 

However, the QB's coming out this draft won't solidify a Dynasty.  All we can hope for is a team that can contend.  Anything more-- based on tanking-- would be wishfull thinking.  Even though it's a QB driven league, you still need many aspects to ensure contender status, much less a dynasty.  These are all things you know, and I'm just restating it to provide a basis for my arguement. 

 

Now with the obvious out there, I'll go to history-- The history that backs my position, of course...  :-)

 

The Detroit Lions, under GM Matt Millen, bottomed out multiple times in the late 90's/early 2000's...  They had multiple high first round picks and finally got thier franchise QB, franchise WR, and the franchise DT...  Stafford, Megatron, BoynameSuh...  These picks were all touted at the time as key franchise picks that a bottom tier team could utilize to leap into not just parity, but contender status.

 

Without taking the time to search how often this nucleus has gone to the playoffs since Millen left, it's clear that the Lions are a tough team.  However, I do not recall the Lions getting to any Superbowls since bottoming out.  I don't remember the Lions being in the playoffs on a consistent basis.  What I see is a team that  has ups and downs, has good years and disappointing years...  It makes me wonder if maybe they are still trying to build a franchise that believes they are winners.  It also makes me wonder if perhaps all those high draft picks they got from bottoming out were not the best picks to have.  It then also makes me wonder if bottoming out is the best method to build a team.

 

If we look at draft picks in terms of game theory, then yes, statistically it makes sense to bottom out and get the "best" player.  For instance, when a pawn crosses into the opposing king row, the player can choose any piece to "promote" that pawn.  It's a given that the player will choose Queen. But the problem is that football is not perfect.  If you choose Queen as promotion, it does not solidify you will have a Franchise player worth the value of said promotion.

 

On top of that, you're dealing with humans.  We as humans are not subject to just enviornment.  We are also not subject to just genetics.  There's a combination that creates dynamic randomness. 

 

For me, I'd preferr we get a good GM that can build a team through multiple years.  I think we all agree with that.  Additionally, I do not believe that bottoming out implies a rise to contention.  I provided the Lions as my example.  You could put the Bills, Browns, Raiders, Jaguars (sigh), Vikings, etc into the mix.

 

To me, I think it's important to understand that we suck.  But to  suck consistently doesn't necessarily translate to future wins.  It just doesn't.  Not in the NFL.  You need a good evaluator of talent, you need a good HC that can build players, and you need a decent QB (franchise doesn't mean elite, just good enough) to become a perpetual contender.  I don't think Tanking is a philosophy that any team should consider. 

 

If you exclude the lottery ticket that occured for the clots when they hit on Luck, most teams don't turn it around consistently.  Even with that said, I'm still not sold that Luck with be better and provide the clots as many SB rings as Manning has...  That team's D is getting old on the D-line, and thier WR's are not very good.  Plus, Luck is not as accurate as Manning past 20 yards...  But that's a different discussion...

 

In conclusion, my theory is that we must continue to work towards wins.  Winning will not provide us a SB this year.  But winning will provide a leaping off point into the future.  Yes, we can tank this year and then get the #1 pick.  But my points above show historical evidence that #1 picks do not mean we will be contenders either.  (oh I just forgot about the tacks...  They got V.Young, had Chris Johnson in his prime, really good D that they picked up from Free Agency and high draft picks, but still were inconsistent).  Again, it's just the fact that we shouldn't expect that tanking like TMD would say to get Bridgewater should be our goal for this year.

 

I mean, sheesh, people are now drooling over Florida State's QB, and he won't be draftable till next year.  The point is that EVERY YEAR there will be a QB to "Tank" for.  Rather than tanking, why not create a winnin franchise philosophy.  Draft Well.  Develop your Talent.  Seek Value in Free Agency.  YEAR IN / YEAR OUT.  Become a Franchise of consitency. 

 

I look forward to your response.  I apologize for some of my ramblings.

---

I'm perfectly fine with simple. My position is actually very simple. I don't ever root for my team to lose.

 

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

 

It makes it easy for me. I don't have to wonder if I'm cheering for a win or loss, and try to extrapolate that to a future with infinite variables.

 

I am simple. I want them to win every time. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. The outcome changes week to week, but my attitude toward winning will not change. I haven't heard a good reason yet to change to a losing mentality yet.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.